Preface.

—and of those on the other hand who, because there are some obvious additions original: "interpolations" and marks of a relatively late date in some of the texts, assert broadly that they are all untrustworthy and worthless as evidence. I believe this view is just as unscholarly original: "uncritical" and baseless as the former. Although many points are certainly still uncertain, I cannot help but think that a great many can be established with reasonable certainty, and that many more can be determined with as much probability as most accepted historical conclusions.

Arguments against the idea that the Liturgy came before the Epistles. To mention two instances, on the first of which Dr. Neale lays great stress:

(a) 1 Corinthians 2:9, which appears in the Prayer of the Great Oblation Great Oblation The central prayer of the Eucharist, also known as the Anaphora, where the bread and wine are offered to God. (see page 42, § XIV). In the Epistle One of the letters in the New Testament written by an Apostle., the passage is clearly a quotation, being abruptly introduced and providing no earlier word for the starting relative pronoun, "which" original Greek: ἅ (ha), to refer back to. In the Liturgy, the passage runs smoothly, naturally following the preceding word, "gifts" original Greek: δωρήματα (dorēmata). Therefore, says Dr. Neale, it is obviously quoted in the Epistle from the Liturgy.

But there is another equally possible hypothesis: namely, that both the Epistle and the Liturgy are quoting from a third, separate document. Quotations in the Liturgies always, as a matter of course, run on smoothly because they are interwoven into the context; therefore, there is no particular weight in this argument. Meanwhile, there are two fatal facts that Dr. Neale did not notice. These are, first, that the exact same passage occurs also in St. Mark’s Liturgy (see page 183, § XI. f), but in a completely different connection and with a different word for the pronoun to refer to. Secondly, the passage is missing in the Syriac version of St. James’s Liturgy in the Prayer of the Great Oblation (see page 70, § X. a), which otherwise corresponds exactly with the Greek formula. This makes it probable that the passage was added to the prayer no earlier than the Council of Chalcedon A major church council held in 451 AD to discuss the nature of Christ. (451 AD).

(b) Or, again, if we look at Hebrews 10:19–20 (see page 39, § X. f), we shall see that in the Epistle there is a twofold application of the word "veil" original Greek: καταπέτασμα (katapetasma). But in the Liturgy, a further reference is added of which there is no trace in the Epistle—a reference to the physical veil being raised from the Mysteries The consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist. by the Priest at that exact moment. Is it not more natural to assume that the passage with the simpler meaning is the original, and the one with the more complex meaning is the quotation?

It is obvious that such a theory as this—which is itself unlikely from the start—requires very strong evidence if it is to be believed; but there is not a single alleged quotation which, when closely examined, provides it any real support.